AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Initially, employee has filed this petition. During the pendency of the petition, he died. His legal heirs are brought on record.
The employee was appointed as Assistant Teacher.
He was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and convicted by the trial Court.
The trial Court awarded a sentence of RI two years with fine of Rs.100/-. He was released from jail after undergoing the sentence on 04.07.1985. After being released from the jail, because his appeal upto Supreme Court was dismissed, he submitted an application before the District Education Officer to the effect that he be reinstated in service because he had no means of livelihood and the offence for which he was convicted was not amounting to moral turpitude. The District Education Officer vide order dated 17.02.1986 terminated the services of the employee. Against the aforesaid order, the employee submitted representation before the Joint Director of Education and other authorities. He also submitted application to Deputy Director of Education, Sidhi.
The Deputy Director of Education, Sidhi vide order dated 28.04.1995 accepted the representation of the employee and set aside the order of termination passed by the District Education Officer and ordered that the employee be reinstated in service from the date of his presence. The employee was not given the benefit of post services, hence, again he submitted representations and those representations were rejected. Finally, his representation was rejected by the Director Public Instructions and the same was communicated to the employee vide order dated 19.04.1997. It is mentioned in the order that the employee was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and his conviction was upheld upto Supreme Court, hence, he is not eligible to count his post services i.e. prior to
28.04.1995.
The employee filed this petition before this Court for grant of benefit of post services.
It is pleaded in the petition that another employee namely Ramfal Tiwari was given the same benefit and the employee was not convicted for an offence which involved moral turpitude, hence, his post services has to be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits including pension.
It is a fact that the employee was retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation and he was died during the pendency of this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the services of the employee were terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing. He was not convicted for an offence which involves moral turpitude. Hence, after his reinstatement, he is eligible to receive the benefit of post services.
I am not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is an admitted that the employee was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC. His conviction was upheld upto the Supreme Court. His services were terminated, thereafter, treating a special case, the Deputy Director of Education accepted the representation of the employee with a condition that his services would be counted from the date of his presence.
He accepted the condition. The employee was reinstated in service by the same authority. Although, in my opinion, the Deputy Director of Education was not competent to order reinstatement and change the order of termination from service, which was passed by the officer of the same cadre and post, however, he was reinstated in service and the benefit was accorded to the employee, hence, he cannot claim equal treatment at par with another employee.
In view of the aforesaid facts of the case, in my opinion, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.